Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion
AbstractTied sales have a long history of scrutiny under the antitrust laws of the United States. The primary basis for the condemnation of this practice has been the court's belief in what has come to be known as the "leverage theory" of tying: that is, that tying provides a mechanism whereby a firm with monopoly power in one market can use the leverage provided by this power to foreclose sales in, and thereby monopolize, a second market. In recent years, however, the leverage theory has come under heavy attack. In this paper, I reconsider the leverage hypothesis. I argue that, in an important sense, the models used by the critics of the leverage theory which all assume that the tied good market has a competitive, constant returns-to-scale structure- are incapable of addressing the central concern of the leverage theory, that tying can be profitably used to change the market structure of the tied good market. I then demonstrate that when the tied good market has an oligopolistic structure, tying can indeed serve as a mechanism for leveraging market power through the foreclosure of tied market rivals sales. The mechanism through which this foreclosure occurs, its profitability for the monopolist, and its welfare implications are discussed in detail.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 2995.
Date of creation: Jun 1989
Date of revision:
Publication status: published as American Economic Review, Vol. 80, No. 4, pp. 837-859, September 1990.
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Whinston, Michael D, 1990. "Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 837-59, September.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ordover, Janusz A. & Saloner, Garth, 1987. "Predation, Monopolization and Antitrust," Working Papers, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University 87-07, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Blair, Roger D & Kaserman, David L, 1978. "Vertical Integration, Tying, and Antitrust Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 68(3), pages 397-402, June.
- David M. Kreps & Jose A. Scheinkman, 1983. "Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 326-337, Autumn.
- Shaked, Avner & Sutton, John, 1982. "Relaxing Price Competition through Product Differentiation," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 3-13, January.
- Spence, Michael, 1976. "Product Selection, Fixed Costs, and Monopolistic Competition," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 217-35, June.
- Carbajo, Jose & de Meza, David & Seidmann, Daniel J, 1990. "A Strategic Motivation for Commodity Bundling," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 283-98, March.
- Jeremy I. Bulow & John Geanakoplos & Paul D. Klemperer, 1983. "Multimarket Oligopoly," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University 674, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Steven C. Salop, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 141-156, Spring.
- Fudenberg, Drew & Tirole, Jean, 1984. "The Fat-Cat Effect, the Puppy-Dog Ploy, and the Lean and Hungry Look," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 361-66, May.
- N. Gregory Mankiw & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 48-58, Spring.
- McAfee, R Preston & McMillan, John & Whinston, Michael D, 1989. "Multiproduct Monopoly, Commodity Bundling, and Correlation of Values," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 104(2), pages 371-83, May.
- Adams, William James & Yellen, Janet L, 1976. "Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 475-98, August.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.